![]() Alternatively, if it is felt that the authors have not or cannot bring the paper up to standard, reviewers can recommend that it be rejected. If the reviewer feels the authors have made the required changes and the paper is suitable for publication, they may endorse it. They can also access and comment on other reviewers' review reports. If needed, reviewers can enter a dialog with the author to request clarifications or further revisions. Reviewers are notified when the author has replied in full, and/or resubmitted their manuscript in line with reviewer comments. Once the interactive review phase is activated, authors are notified and are able to view and respond to reviewers' comments within the review forum. Even if the review reports are unfavorable to the authors, the collaborative review forum is activated to allow authors the opportunity of a rebuttal. Once all reviewers have submitted their review report, the handling editor is responsible for activating the next phase of the process: the Interactive Review. At this stage they are able to directly endorse the manuscript and finalize their review process, should the manuscript meet our acceptance criteria. When submitting their review report, a reviewer will also submit their recommendation to the editor. ![]() ![]() The review is completed by answering a review questionnaire provided in the review forum, and tailored for each article type (original research, review, study protocol, clinical trial, etc). During this first review phase the reviewers assess the paper independently from each other and the authors. In the review forum, they can access and review the manuscript and supporting documents. Once a reviewer accepts the invitation to review, they are sent an email with a link to the online review forum. Editors and reviewers work with the authors to improve their manuscript. Our peer review platform is collaborative: it unites authors, reviewers, and the handling editor in a direct online dialog, enabling quick iterations and facilitating consensus. What to expect from our collaborative peer review This is why we disclose the name of all endorsing reviewers upon publication, for every article we publish. We believe in transparency and ensuring no bias during the peer review process. This means the reviewers know who the authors are in order to offer a full assessment within the context of their research and to ensure they can avoid any potential competing interests in accepting a review invitation.įrontiers also believes that reviewers should be acknowledged for their work in conducting peer review. What is the Frontiers peer review model?įrontiers operates a single-blind model during the review process. Read on for a guide for reviewers on what to expect of our peer review process. ![]() Frontiers' collaborative peer review is unique and quality-focused. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |